NIMBY America Archive

According to Forbes Magazine, Al Norman is “Wal-Mart’s #1 Enemy” and 60 Minutes has called him “the guru behind the anti-Wal-Mart movement.” Mr. Slevin originally interviewed Al Norman for the July 2006 edition of the Slevin Report, which was the predecessor of NIMBY America Newsletter. In the interview, Mr. Norman shares tactics and perspectives on how he conducts NIMBY warfare, which will greatly educate and benefit our readers. Norman’s insights are more revealing and prevalent now then they were 3 years ago. Mr. Slevin appreciates Mr. Norman’s willingness to share his expertise for our readers to consider and learn.

Slevin: What was it that got you into the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) business? When?

Norman: First, let’s look at this acronym: NIMBY. This is a derogative term invented by developers, who themselves might be called DUMBIs: “Developers Undermining My Biggest Investment.” Homeowners, who fight to protect their land and property, feel that developers are threatening the largest investment they make in their life. Just as a business person would fight protect the equity in his or her business, homeowners fight to protect their business interests. They view developers as DUMBIs.

In 1993, I got involved in fighting one of the most egregious DUMBIs around: the Wal-Mart corporation. I remember one DUMBI in New England who was doing business as “Infinity Properties.” His name was emblematic of his vision: he saw land as unlimited, and with almost everything sprawling development he proposed, the neighbors organized to stop it. For both parties, it was a business decision. But for the homeowner, it was a battle with very deep personal significance. If a home is your castle, DUMBIs are trying to break down the castle gates. Most DUMBI’s would never live near the projects they try to foist on NIMBYs.

Slevin: Who is the average NIMBY?

Norman: I would never use the word NIMBY or DUMBI at a land use hearing. What I see there are competing business interests. The homeowner is there, usually not by choice, to defend his or her property from commercial intrusions. The developer is there to make a profit on his or her investment. They are really very similar-except the homeowner lives in the affected area, and spends 85% or more of their time there, the developer does not. We are all homeowners, or renters. And we resent the idea of someone barging into our home with an enormous, oversized project that threatens to change the character and quality of life where we have chosen to live.

Slevin: You see NIMBYism on a daily basis. Why is it so prevalent?

Norman: Yes, I see NIMBYs and DUMBIs every day. We have thousands of homeowners today trying to hold bake sales and car washes to ward off the largest retail corporations in the world. We are seeing more of these battles because citizens are being pushed into a corner by developers, and like caged animals, they have no recourse except to claw back. The developers rarely, if ever, have a meaningful conversation with the people who would be their neighbors.

Slevin: How many NIMBY conflicts have you been involved in or counseled?

Norman: I have written nearly 2,400 stories on the Newsflash page on my website, www.sprawl-busters.com. I have listed more than 300 communities that have stopped big box stores at least once in their community. I have fought the mammoth IKEA projects, down to the Rite Aid store at 12,000 square feet. My only rules are 1) that I only help communities when the residents invite me to help them, and 2) if they believe a commercial project is unhelpful-regardless of the size-I am prepared to help teach them how to stop it.

Slevin: What are the circumstances that set off a neighborhood into action opposing projects?

Norman: Because developers generally don’t sit down with their neighbors until they have submitted a site plan to the town, most residents get involved when they read about a project in the newspaper, or they hear rumors that trees are being cleared on the land. They almost never hear directly about it from developers. Ignoring the basic civility of sitting down with the people who may oppose your project, is the proverbial “first wrong step” that developers make, and the path only goes downhill from there.

Slevin: Is the playing field level for residents when it comes to elected bodies hearing their voices when deciding whether to approve a land use application? Why?

Norman: Land use development in America is the ultimate insider’s game. The rules were written by, and tailored to, the needs of developers. Our zoning codes were written by real estate and development interests, and when cases come before local boards, the developer arrives with his land use attorney, civil engineer, traffic engineer, and hydrologist. The citizens show up clutching a petition. The developer has pre-development funds to spend on PR and site studies, the citizens are holding a bake sale. Elected officials are intimidated by developers. These local officials–often appointed, not elected—are not experts in their field, and are afraid of potential litigation. Given this description, it is remarkable that citizens ever win—but we do, and more often than most developers would care to admit.

Slevin: As a consultant, what do you do to help communities level the playing field?

Norman: I help residents understand how the land use game is played, what the rules are, and what kind of expertise they will need. I essentially help them to think and act like developers, to use the same resources that developers would use-just turning those resources against a project instead of for it. These “accidental activists” are very bright, and learn quickly, but it is not an area of expertise they have developed. The learning curve has to be very fast, because many of these projects move on a greased track.

Slevin: What makes developers easy targets to NIMBY?

Norman: Developers often present themselves as their own worse caricatures: They dress like developers, they behave like developers, they are armed with a “row of suits” like developers. They are often arrogant, they alienate local residents by ignoring them or minimizing their concerns, and they patronize just about everyone they encounter. But their main weakness is that the product they are pushing-a large scale, windowless, dead piece of architecture-is something the neighbors can’t buy. For most developers, there is no flexibility, and no give and take. They will only negotiate the color of the building, or some minor façade treatment-but size and intensity of use-never.

Slevin: Is all development bad?

Norman: Many forms of development “add value” to a community. But if they add no value, and simply are being built to expand market share and keep shareholders on Wall Street happy, then people on Main Street will not be happy. Adding a fourth grocery store to a trade area that has a static population and income base, is not adding value. We have too much redundant development today, sort of a game of retail musical chairs. This is terrible land use policy, because every unneeded project consumes 20 or 30 acres at a time, causes economic dislocation, and offers little to the health, safety and welfare of local residents. Wal-Mart has more than 24 million square feet of “dark stores” today-a colossal testament to wasteful development excesses in this nation.

I see land use development like joining a family already in progress. If I sit down to eat at your family table, I should just sit for a while and listen to the conversation. Learn something about your family. What they like, what they don’t like. If I have a plan that will have a major impact on where you live, I should sit down and talk it over with you, get your reactions, listen to your concerns. Developers omit this entire first step. They are in a big rush to get to the bottom line, and the neighbors are seen as an obstacle to overcome. That’s where the trouble starts.

Slevin: What was the worst (negative) action you’ve seen a developer take to overcome conflict?

Norman: It’s very unpleasant when a developer has his lawyer start calling up neighbors threatening them with the lawsuit. These so called SLAPP suits (strategic litigation against public participation) are very ugly to watch, especially with elderly and disabled homeowners. I am also appalled when developers with deep pockets try to get taxpayers to underwrite the cost of roads, sewers, and water to their site. We don’t need to give companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot corporate welfare-and developers should not ask for it. I also find it remarkable that developers will try to call their 500,000 square foot project “The Village Centre” or “River Oaks,” when its nothing but a sea of asphalt surrounded by a wall of concrete.

Slevin: What was the best (positive) action you’ve seen a developer take to overcome conflict?

Norman: I’ve seen developers try to build into their project timetable a period of meaningful discussion with residents, and be flexible with design, before everything is cast in stone. This is unusual, and often not done well, but it is one of the most important strategies that would help developers cut down on the other end of their project months of costly litigation and delay.

Slevin: Is the media part of your tactics? If so, does the news media help or hinder your efforts? How?

Norman: Use of the media is one of the essential tools that citizens must learn how to use. We can’t activate people until we educate people. Developers will simply hire a PR firm to generate a full-color brochure with an architect’s drawing resembling Shangri-La. But residents can use low-tech media approaches, like letters to the editor or op-ed columns, to get out their point of view.

Slevin: What makes a new Wal-Mart less appealing than let’s say a Target?

Norman: In my book, a Super Target and a Wal-Mart supercenter are indistinguishable. People think of Target as being more upscale, less threatening. But these companies operate the same at a land use level. They don’t talk to neighbors, they often pick inappropriate sites for their projects, and they use the same high-handed approach with local permitting boards and residents. The logo on the side of the building means little. My bumper sticker says: “I don’t shop at Sprawl-Marts.”

Slevin: If you were counseling a developer who was planning to build in a new community, what would you advise him to do to avoid NIMBY attacks?

Norman: The best thing a developer could do is to imagine that they have just purchased a one or two family house in the neighborhood, and to consider how they would view the proposed retail mall from that perspective. Then, they should sit down directly-not filtered through consultants—with residents and hear exactly how they would react to the design and scale of the project. Scale is the big problem with big boxes, and it is the impacts related to scale that will kill a project. Talk early with residents, and often.

Slevin: What can a developer do in the community to make your job harder?

Norman: Listen to people’s needs. Accommodate their desires, and truly behave as if you owned a home near the project.

Slevin: What is your forecast for the future of the NIMBY Nation?

Norman: I am predicting this year that at least one-third of the Wal-Mart superstores proposed will be opposed by local residents. That will turn a 3 month process into potentially a two or three year cycle instead. For every one year that a Wal-Mart superstore is not open, the company forgoes $100 million in sales. Any reduction in the output of new square footage will affect the company’s share price. This is why corporations like Wal-Mart need to begin a real dialogue with community groups, rather than simply talking to them through the media. My two books have been translated into Japanese, and I have traveled to five foreign countries at the request of local groups. So the big box battles are becoming international, and developers will feel increasing pressure to get to know their neighbors—not simply try to blow them away.

###

Mr. Norman is the author of two books, “Slam Dunking Wal-Mart: How You an
Stop Superstore Sprawl In Your Hometown” and “The Case Against Wal-Mart.”